Religious freedoms and the right to exercise without being gawked at: The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal Enlightens Us
November 23, 2006 · By Aaron Unruh
The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has ruled against a man who claimed he was discriminated against by women only gyms. The tribunal made some bleating noises over how allowing men to attend women only gyms would infringe on the rights of women (which is nonsense since all the major gyms in Vancouver have women only sections). But the tribunal made a much bigger deal over the supposedly fatuous nature of the claim:
“Mr. Stopps was, and is still, able to participate in the social and cultural life of British Columbia,” Parrack wrote.
“He is able to meet his goal of being fit and join any number of fitness facilities that would serve to meet his particular needs.”
What pragmatic considerations. The tribunal pointedly refuses to answer the question of discrimination in principle, but claims that the availablity of other gyms for Stoops to attend means he isn’t discriminated against by women only gyms.
Which is fascinating given the highly principled manner in which the tribunal responded to the complaint of two lesbians against the Knights of Columbus for denying the rental of their convention hall for a gay wedding. As everyone knows, there are lots and lots of places for lesbians to get married in the Lower Mainland and ample evidence that the lesbians chose the Knights of Columbus hall solely to provoke a human rights complaint. And yet the tribunal found that the lesbians had been discriminated against despite the availability of other such facilities.
Too bad for Stoops that he isn’t gay. The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal would have been tripping over itself to rule in his favour.
You obviously have never read the ruling in regards to the KofC case.
It was a split ruling. Essentially, what it did was upheld the KofC’s right to refuse the rental (which was the religious protections issue), however it also levied punitive damages for what amounts to “breaking contract” (which was a Brockie-style “we don’t serve your kind” denial of service)
In other words, the KofC has an obligation to be “up front” about their policies with whomever they are making what amounts to a commercial contract.
In that light, the ruling you’re talking about here happens to be amazingly consistent. Women-only gyms are quite clear about their policies up front. (and while I don’t know of any “men-only” policy gyms out there, I know of plenty of women who don’t especially enjoy being leered at by men several times their size while they are exercising)
What do you think the odds of a “Men Only” Gym surviving a similar rights complaint?
Seems to me that you can’t even prevent school girls from playing on a Boy’s only team in Manitoba. Even with other teams available.
More like, “what are the odds of a men-only gym surviving the free market?”
Perhaps a re-read is in order for you, Grog. From the decision:
“the Knights and Mr. Lazar, on behalf of the Knights, discriminated contrary to s. 8 of the Code;”
The tribunal did put emphasis on their opinion that the Knights did not make clear the religious nature of the organization when the rental agreement was signed. [They also accept the lesbians' dubious claim that the crucifixes and other religious symbols scattered throughout the hall did not tip them off to the religion of the Knights.] But to claim that the tribunal sided with the lesbians solely because their contract was broken is nonsense.
But to claim that the tribunal sided with the lesbians solely because their contract was broken is nonsense.
From Section 8 of the BC Human Rights Code:
Discrimination in accommodation, service and facility
8. (1) A person must not, without a bona fide and reasonable justification,
(a) deny to a person or class of persons any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public, or
(b) discriminate against a person or class of persons regarding any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public
because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex or sexual orientation of that person or class of persons.
Is that clear enough for you?
As for the KofC and religious symbols, not everybody “knows” the affiliation of KofC with the R/C church, and since many religious organizations do not have a problem dealing with LGBT people, it seems to me that it is incumbent upon them to make their policy regarding LGBT clients clear up front.
(To the commenter that asked about a challenge of a “mens only” fitness club: I would have to presume that as long as the policy was clear up front the same rules would apply)
I’m not sure if anyone cares, but every fall I attend a oyster fry dinner put on by a local service club – which just happens to be a men’s only event (not sure why a women would even want to go).
Of course, the event takes place in Enchant Alberta, so perhaps the long arm of Human Rights Tribunal might not reach that far into the boonies ;)
“Is that clear enough for you?”
No, actually. The tribunal never found that the Knights’ religion was a reasonable justification to discriminate…IF they were up front about that discrimination to begin with. Try again.
“(To the commenter that asked about a challenge of a “mens only†fitness club: I would have to presume that as long as the policy was clear up front the same rules would apply)”
Don’t you know that the Charter is there not to provide equality, but to benefit historically-disadvantaged groups?
An oyster fry in Lethbridge? Not sure that I’d enjoy those oysters. :)
Aaron: He said oysters in Enchant, not Lethbridge. Big difference, man.
The tribunal never found that the Knights’ religion was a reasonable justification to discriminate…IF they were up front about that discrimination to begin with.
Please review paragraph [120] The decision. Which reads “ Although we have accepted that the Knights could refuse access to the Hall to the
complainants because of their core religious beliefs…In
the circumstances of this case, the Knights could not simply act in a manner that
adversely affected the rights of the complainants to be free from discrimination without
considering the effect that would have on the complainants’ right to access a public
service particularly because they had already agreed to rent the Hall to the complainants.
In other words, the KofC cornered themselves by making an agreement and then arbitrarily breaking it. In essence, had the KofC been “up front” about it. So, yes, they did in effect find that those were legitimate grounds.
Don’t you know that the Charter is there not to provide equality,
You must have some deluded idea that marginalizing people is a “good thing” to make that statement.
More like, “what are the odds of a men-only gym surviving the free market?â€
You guys obviously don’t know any gay guys. I think it would survive quite well.
[...] from the BC human rights tribunal: Men-only lounges, bad. But women-only fitness clubs, fantastic! This entry was written by Aaron Unruh and posted on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:25 pm and filed under [...]